Aircraft Flight Dynamics

 
R o b e r t o   A .   B u n g e  
 
A A 2 4 1 X  
A p r i l   1 3   2 0 1 5  
S t a n f o r d   U n i v e r s i t y  
 
 
 
 
AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge
 
 Overview

1.  Equations of motion

¡  Full Nonlinear EOM
¡  Decoupling of EOM
¡  Simplified Models

2.  Aerodynamics
¡  Dimensionless coefficients
¡  Stability & Control Derivatives

3.  Trim Analysis

¡  Level, climb and glide
¡  Turning maneuver

4.  Linearized Dynamics Analysis

¡  Longitudinal
¡  Lateral
AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge
 Equations of Motion

—  Dynamical system is defined by a transition function,

mapping states & control inputs to future states

X
Aircraft X!
EOM
δ

X! = f (X, δ )

AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge

 States and Control Inputs

! x $
# &
# y & position
# z &
# &
# u & !δe $ elevator
# v &
velocity
# &
# & #δt & throttle
# w & δ=
X =# θ & #δa & aileron
# φ & attitude # &
# & "δr % rudder
# ψ &
# p &
# &
# q & angular velocity
# &
#" r &%

There are alternative ways of defining states and control inputs

AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge
 Full Nonlinear EOM

•  System of 12 Nonlinear ODEs

—  Dynamics Eqs.* —  Kinematic Eqs.:
Linear Acceleration = Aero + gravity + Gyro Relation between position and velocity

mu! = X − mgsin(θ ) + m(rv − qw) ! x! $ ! u $

# & N B # &
mv! = Y + mgsin(φ )cos(θ ) + m( pw − ru) # y! & = R (φ ,θ ,ψ ) # v &
mw! = Z + mg cos(φ )cos(θ ) + m(qu − pv) # z! & # w &
" % " %

Angular Acceleration = Aero + Gyro Relation between attitude and angular velocity

I xx p! = l + (I yy − I zz )qr φ! = p + qsin(φ )tan(θ ) + r cos(φ )tan(θ )

I yy q! = m + (I zz − I xx )pr θ! = q cos(φ ) − r sin(φ )
I zz r! = n + (I xx − I yy )pq sin(φ ) cos(φ )
ψ! = q +r
cos(θ ) cos(θ )
*Assuming calm atmosphere and symmetric aircraft (Neglecting cross-
products of inertia

AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge

 Nonlinearity and Model Uncertainty

—  Sources of nonlinearity:

¡  Trigonometric projections (dependent on attitude)
¡  Gyroscopic effects
¡  Aerodynamics
÷  Dynamic pressure
÷  Reynolds dependencies
÷  Stall & partial separation

—  Model uncertainties:

¡  Gravity & Gyroscopic terms are straightforward, provided we can
measure mass, inertias and attitude accurately

¡  Aerodynamics is harder, especially viscous effects: lifting surface

drag, propeller & fuselage aerodynamics

AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge

 Flight Dynamics and Navigation Decoupling

The full nonlinear EOMs have a cascade structure

δdyn X dyn = δnav X nav

Flight Dyn. Nav.

Flight Dynamics Navigation

! u $
# & ! u $
# v & # &
!δe $ ! # v &
# w &
# & x $ # w &
# & δ # &
θ y & # &
X dyn = # & δdyn = # t & X nav = ## θ
# φ & #δa & z & δnav = # φ
&
# # & # & # &
p & "δr % #" ψ &% # p &
# & # &
# q & q &
#
# r &% #
" " r &%
—  Flight Dynamics is the “inner dynamics”
—  Navigation is “outer dynamics”: usually what we care about

AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge

 Longitudinal & Lateral Decoupling

For a symmetric aircraft near a symmetric flight condition, the Flight Dynamics can be
further decoupled in two independent parts
Flight Dynamics
δlon Xlon
Lon.

δlat Lat. Xlat

Longitudinal Dynamics Lateral-Directional Dynamics

!u $ !v $
# & # & !δa $
w !δ $ φ
Xlon = # & δlon = # e & Xlat = # & δlat * = # &
#θ & # p& "δr %
"δt % # &
# & "r %
"q % * As we shall see, throttle also has effects on the
lateral dynamics, but these can be eliminated
with appropriate aileron and rudder

—  Although usually used in perturbational (linear) models, many times this decoupling can
also be used for nonlinear analysis (e.g. symmetric flight with large vertical motion)

AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge

 Alternative State Descriptions

—  Translational dynamics: Transformations:

1.  {u, v, w}: most useful in 6 DOF flight
simulation u = V cos(α )cos(β )
2.  {V, alfa, beta}: easiest to describe v = V sin(β )
aerodynamics w = V sin(α )cos(β )

—  Longitudinal dynamics:

1.  {V, alfa, theta, q}: conventional
description CL = ao (α − α Lo )
2.  {V, CL, gamma, q}: best for nonlinear
trajectory optimization γ =θ −α
3.  {V, CL, theta, q}: all states are
m accelz
measurable, more natural for controls CL ≈ −
1 ρS
2 V2

AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge

 Simplified Models

—  Many times we can neglect or assume aspects of the system N ε

V V
and look at the overall behavior γ
—  Its important to know what you want to investigate
x,y,z: North, East, Down position coordinates
ε : course over ground E D
Model States Controls EOM Constraints

2 DOF navigation+
x! = Vo sin(ε )
1 DOF point mass
x, y, ε ε! y! = Vo cos(ε )
ε = ∫ ε! dt ε! ≤
Vo
Rmin
3 DOF navigation + x, y, z, ε x! = Vo sin(ε )cos(γ )
1 DOF point mass ε!, γ y! = Vo cos(ε )cos(γ )
z! = −Vo sin(γ ) γ ≤ γ max
+ dynamics
V ≤ Vmax + variables
3 DOF navigation + ε! = 1 2 ρ mS −1 VCL sin(φ )
2 DOF point mass x, y, z, γ , ε V, CL , φ g cos(γ )
CL < CLmax + details
γ! = 1 2 ρ mS −1 VCL cos(φ ) − φ ≤ φmax
V
3 DOF navigation +
3 DOF point mass
x, y, z, γ , ε,V T, CL , φ T g
V! = − sin(γ ) − 1 2 ρ mS V 2CD (CL )
−1
T ≤ Tmax
m m
Many more models! …. …. …. ….

“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not more” (~A. Einstein)
AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge
 Aerodynamics

—  In the full nonlinear EOM aerodynamic forces and moments are:

X,Y, Z, l, m, n
—  Given how experimental data is presented, and to separate
different aerodynamic effects, its easier to use:

L, D,Y,T, l, m, n

—  Dimensional analysis allows to factor different contributions:

¡  Dynamic pressure
¡  Aircraft size
L = 1 ρV 2 SC
¡  Aircraft geometry 2 L
¡  Relative flow angles
dyn. pressure size Aircraft and flow geometry, and Reyonolds
¡  Reynolds number

AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge

 Aerodynamics II

—  The dimensionless forces and moments CL , CD , CY , CT , Cl , C m , Cn are a function of:

i.  Aircraft geometry (fixed): AR, taper, dihedral, etc.

ii.  Control surface deflections δe , δa , δr

w v V pb qc rb
iii.  Relative flow angles: α ≈ V , β ≈ V , λ = ΩR , p̂ = , q̂ = , r̂ =
2V 2V 2V
ρ cV if the variation of speeds is small, it can be
iv.  Reynolds number: Re = assumed constant and factored out
µ

—  Alfa and lambda: dependence is nonlinear and should be preserved if possible

—  The rest can be represented with linear terms (Stability and Control Derivatives)

—  At low AoA some stability derivatives depend on alfa, and at high angles of
attack all are affected by alf

AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge

 Stability and Control Derivatives
Stability  Derivtaives   Control  Deriva1ves   Nonlinear/Trim  

α! β p̂   q̂ r̂ δe δa δr α λ δ are small angular

deflections w.r.t. a zero
CL   CLα CLq CLδe CL (α, λ ) position, usually the trim
deflection
         

CD   CDα CDq CDδe CD (α, λ ) α ! is an angle of attack

perturbation around α
         

CY   CYβ CYr CY   δr ~zero

             
Minor importance
Cl   Clβ Cl p Clr Clδa Clδr Cl (λ )
        Estimate via calculations

Cm   Cmα Cmq Cmδe Cm (α, λ ) Estimate via calculations

or flight testing
         
Estimate or trim out via
flight testing
Cn   Cnβ Cn p Cnr Cnδa Cnδr Cn (λ )
Hard to estimate
       

CT   CT (λ )
                 

AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge

 Stability and Control Derivatives II

—  Examples of force and moment expressions:

Lift: CL = CL (α 0 , λ ) + CLα α ! + CLq q̂ + CLδe (δe − δe0 )

Pitching moment: Cm = Cm (α 0 , λ ) + Cmα α ! + Cm q q̂ + Cmδe (δe − δe0 )

Rolling moment: Cl = Cl p p̂ + Clδa δa + Clβ β + Clδr δr

—  Example dimensionless pitching equation*:

Iˆxx q̂! = Cm = Cm (α 0 , λ ) + Cmα α ! + Cm q q̂ + Cmδe (δe − δe0 )

* Neglecting gyroscopic terms

AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge

 Aerodynamics IV

Zilliac (1983)

Bihrle, et. al. (1978) LSPAD, Selig, et. al. (1997)

AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge

 Trim Analysis

—  Flight conditions at which if we keep controls fixed, the aircraft will remain at that
same state (provided no external disturbances)

Xtrim
Aircraft X! = 0
EOM
δtrim
—  For each aircraft there is a mapping between trim states and trim control inputs
¡  Analogy: car going at constant speed, requires a constant throttle position

X! = f (Xtrim , δtrim ) = 0 Xtrim = gtrim (δtrim )

—  The mapping g() is not always one-to-one, could be many-to-many!

—  If internal dynamics are stable, then flight condition converges on trim condition

AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge

 An idea: Trim + Regulator Controller

I.  Inverse trim: set control inputs that will take us to the desired state

II.  Regulator: to stabilize modes and bring us back to desired trim state in
the presence of disturbances

Xdesired δtrim + δ X
Trim Aircraft
Relations/Tables EOM
+
δ'
Linear
Regulator
Controller

+
-
AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge
 Longitudinal Trim

—  Simple wing-tail system

L_wing

h_cg h_tail

M_wing
L_tail
mg

AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge

 Longitudinal Trim (II)

—  Moment balance:

0 = M wing − h CG Lwing + xtail Ltail

→ 0 = 1 2 ρV 2 #$cwing SwingCmwing − hCG SwingCLwing + htail Stail CLtail %&

hCG h S
⇒ CLwing (α trim ) = tail tail CLtail (α trim , δ etrim ) − Cmwing
cwing cwing Swing

Elevator trim defines trim AoA, and consequently trim CL

AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge

 Longitudinal Trim (III)

L
—  Force balance*
γ
mg = L cos(γ ) ≈ L = 1 2 ρV 2 SCL α
θ
mg V
⇒V2 =
1 ρ SC (δ e
γ
2 L trim )
T D

Trim Elevator defines trim Velocity! mg

T = D + L sin(γ ) ≈ D + Lγ
T(δttrim ) 1
⇒γ = −
mg ( L )(δetrim )
D

Elevator & Thrust both define Gamma!

*Assuming small Gamma

AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge

 Longitudinal Trim (IV)

—  How do we get an aircraft to climb? (Gamma > 0)

—  Two ways:

1.  Elevator up
÷  Elevator up increases AoA, which increases CL
÷  Increased CL, accelerates aircraft up
÷  Up acceleration, increases Gamma
÷  Increased Gamma rotates Lift backwards, slowing down the aircraft

2.  Increase Thrust

÷  Increased thrust increases velocity, which increases overall Lift
÷  Increased Lift, accelerates aircraft up
÷  Up acceleration, increases Gamma
÷  Increased Gamma rotates Lift backwards, slowing down the aircraft to original speed (set by
Elevator, remember!)

—  Elevator has its limitations

¡  When L/D max is reached, we start going down
¡  When CL max is reached, we go down even faster!

AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge

 Experimental Trim Relations

—  Theoretical relations hold to some degree experimentally

—  In reality:
¡  Propeller downwash on horizontal tail has a significant distorting effect
¡  Reynolds variations with speed, distort aerodynamics

—  One can build trim tables experimentally

¡  Trim flight at different throttle and elevator positions
¡  Measure:
÷  Average airspeed
÷  Average flight path angle Gamma
¡  Phugoid damper would be very helpful

—  One could almost fly open loop with trim tables!

AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge

 Turning Maneuver
φ
—  Centripetal force balance: L
mV 2
L sin(φ ) =
R mV 2
= mV ε!
mV 2 m 1 R
⇒R= =
1 ρV 2 SC sin(φ ) S 1 ρC sin(φ )
2 L 2 L
mg

—  Minimum turn radius: Minimum%Turn%Radius%

(wing%loading%=%35%g/dm^2)%
m 1 60"
Rmin =
S 1 ρC
2 Lmax sin(φ max )
50"

40"

turn%radius%(m)% 30" CL"="0.6"

m
—  Depends on:
CL"="0.8"
φmax , & CLmax 20" CL"="1.0"

S 10"

0"
0" 10" 20" 30" 40" 50" 60" 70" 80"
roll%angle%(deg)%

AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge

 Turning Maneuver II

—  What are the constraints on maximum turn?

1.  Elevator deflection to achieve high CL in a turn
2.  Do we care about loosing altitude?
3.  Maximum speed and thrust
4.  Controls: maneuver can be short lived, so high bandwidth is require for tracking tracking
1.  Roll tracking, etc.
2.  Sensor bandwidth
5.  Maximum G-loading
6.  Maximum CL and stall
7.  Aerolasticity of controls at high loading

—  Elevator to achieve CL:

¡  The pitching moment balance equation in dimensionless form:

Iˆxx q̂! = Cm (α, λ0 ) + Cmq q̂ + Cmδe (δe − δe0 )

¡  Assume that before the turn we have trimmed the aircraft in level flight at the desired alfa (CL):

⇒ Cmδe δe0 = Cm (α, λ0 )

AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge
 Turning Maneuver III
φ
—  The pitch rate is the projection of the turn rate L
onto the pitch axis:
V
q = ε! sin(φ ) =
R
sin(φ ) q = ε! sin(φ )
qc csin(φ ) V
⇒ q̂ = = ε! =
R
2V 2R

—  To maintain the same alfa (CL), extra elevator Extra%elevator%deflec.on%required%in%

is required to counter the pitch rate a%turn%to%maintain%CL%=%0.8%
12"

Exra%elevtor%deflec.on%(deg)%
10"
csin(φ ) 8"
δe = −Cmq 6"

2R 4"
2"
0"
—  To take advantage of elevator throw, horizontal 0" 5" 10" 15" 20" 25" 30" 35" 40" 45"
Turning%radius%
tail incidence has set appropriately, otherwise
turning ability might be limited
AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge
 Linearized Dynamics Analysis

—  Many flight dynamic effects can be analyzed & explained with Linearized
Dynamics

—  Most of the times we linearize dynamics around Trim conditions

Xtrim + X ' ∂f ' ∂f '

X! = X+ δ
Aircraft EOM ∂X ∂δ
(near Trim)

δtrim + δ '

—  Useful to synthesize linear regulator controllers

¡  Provide stability in the face of uncertainty in different dynamic parameters
¡  They help in rejecting disturbances
¡  They can also help in going from one trim state to the another, provided they are not “too far away”

AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge

 Linearized Dynamics

—  Limited to a small region (what does “small” mean?)

¡  Especially due to trigonometric projections and nonlinear alfa
dependences

—  In practice, nonlinear dynamics bear great resemblance

¡  We can gain a lot of insight by studying dynamics in the vicinity a flight
condition

—  We can separate into longitudinal and lateral dynamics

(If aircraft and flight condition are symmetric)

—  Linearized models also provide some information about

trim relations
AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge
 Longitudinal Static Stability

—  Static stability

¡  Does pitching moment increase when AoA increases?
¡  If so, then divergent pitch motion (a.k.a statically unstable)

Lw (α + Δα )
Restoring Divergent
moment Lw (α ) moment

CG ahead CG behind

—  CG needs to be ahead of quarter chord!

—  As CG goes forward, static margin increases, but… more

elevator deflection is required for trim and trim drag increases

AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge

 Longitudinal Dynamics

—  Longitudinal modes

1.  Short period Short period
2.  Phugoid
Phugoid
—  Short period:
¡  Weather cock effect of horizontal tail
¡  Usually highly damped, if you have a tail
¡  Dynamics is on AoA

—  Phugoid:
¡  Exchange of potential and kinetic energy (up-
>speed down, down-> speed up)
¡  Lightly damped, but slow
¡  Causes “bouncing” around pitch trim conditions
g
ω ph ≈ 2
¡  Damping depends on drag: low drag, low Vo
damping!
¡  How can we stabilize/damp it?
1 CD0
ζ ph ≈
2 CL0
—  Propeller dynamics: as a first order lag
—  Idea for Phugoid damper design: reduced
2nd order longitudinal system

AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge

 Lateral Dynamics

—  Lateral-Directional modes: Dutch roll

1.  Roll subsidence
2.  Dutch roll
3.  Spiral

—  Roll subsidence: Roll subsidence

¡  Naturally highly damped
1
2 ρVo Sb 2 Spiral
σ roll ≈ Cl p
¡  “Rolling in honey” effect I xx

—  Dutch roll:

¡  Oscillatory motion
¡  Usually stable, and sometimes lightly damped
¡  Exchange between yaw rate, sideslip and roll rate

—  Spiral:
¡  Usually unstable, but slow enough to be easily stabilized
ρVo Sb 2
1 C
σ spiral ≈ (Cnr − Cnβ lr )
2

I zz Clβ
—  Dutch Roll and Spiral stability are competing
factors
¡  Dihedral and vertical tail volume dominate these

—  Note: see “Flight Vehicle Aerodynamics”, Ch. 9 for

more details
AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge
 Vortex Lattice Codes

—  Good at predicting inviscid part of attached flow

around moderate aspect ratio lifting surfaces

—  Represents potential flow around a wing by a lattice

of horseshoe vortices

AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge

 VLM Codes (II)

—  Viscous drag on a wing, can be added for with “strip theory”
¡  Calculate local Cl with VLM
¡  Calculate 2D Cd(Cl) either from a polar plot of airfoil
¡  Add drag force in the direction of the local velocity

—  Usually not included:

¡  Fuselage
÷  can be roughly accounted by adding a “+” lifting surface
¡  Propeller downwash

—  VLMs can roughly predict:

¡  Aerodynamic performance (L/D vs CL)
¡  Stall speed (CLmax)
¡  Trim relations
¡  Stability Derivatives
÷  Linear control system design
÷  Nonlinear Flight simulation (non-dimensional aerodynamics is linear, but dimensional
aerodynamics are nonlinear and EOMs are nonlinear)

AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge

 VLM Codes (III)

—  AVL:
¡  Reliable output
¡  Viscous strip theory
¡  No GUI & cumbersome to define geometry

—  XFLR:
¡  Reliable output
¡  Viscous strip theory
¡  GUI to define geometry
¡  Good analysis and visualization tools

—  Tornado
¡  I’ve had some discrepancies when validating against AVL
¡  Written in Matlab

—  QuadAir
¡  Good match with AVL
¡  Written in Matlab
¡  Easy to define geometries
¡  Viscous strip theory soon
¡  Originally intended for flight simulation, not aircraft design
÷  Very little native visualization and performance analysis tools

AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge

 Recommended Readings

1.  Fundamentals of Flight, Shevell

¡  Big picture of Aerodynamics, Flight Dynamics and Aircraft Design

2.  Dynamics of Flight, Etkin

¡  Very good development of trim and linearized flight dynamics and aerodynamics. Some
ideas for control

3.  Flight Vehicle Aerodynamics, Drela

¡  Great mix between real world and mathematical aerodynamics and flight dynamics. No
controls. Ch. 9 very clear and useful development of linearized models

4.  Automatic Control of Aircraft and Missiles, Blakelock

¡  In depth description of flight EOMs and many ideas for linear regulators

5.  Low-speed Aerodynamics, Plotkin & Katz

¡  Great book on panel methods (only if you want to write your own panel code)

AA241X, April 13 2015, Stanford University Roberto A. Bunge